Subject: CITIZENFOUR in Prague

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 07:02:13 +1000

I'm pleased to announce that there will be a screening of CITIZENFOUR at 7pm on Sunday in Prague (right after the Welcome Reception), in Congress Hall.
 
For more information on the film, see:
  https://citizenfourfilm.com/

We'll be starting promptly at 7, and space is limited. This event is open to all IETF attendees and companions. Thanks to the ADs who have made the room available.

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Ole Jacobsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 14:41:51 -0700 (PDT)

Mark,

That's really wonderful, thanks for setting it up !

And in the spirit of announcing special events at IETF meetings, here 
is something I am organizing for IETF 94 in Yokohama:

http://www.yokohama-organdemo.org/

We will open the doors at 11:30 for the lunchtime event and at 18:30 
for the evening event [times may change slightly]. Space is NOT 
limited, the hall seats 2,020 people. This event is open to all IETF 
attendees and companions, and members of the public. Admission is 
free. Thanks to all the sponsors who have made the event possible!

Ole

Ole J. Jacobsen
Editor and Publisher
The Internet Protocol Journal
Office:  +1 415-550-9433
Cell:    +1 415-370-4628
UK Cell: +44 7805 977889
docomo: (090) 3337-9311
Web: protocoljournal.org
E-mail: [email-masked]
E-mail: [email-masked]
Skype: organdemo

On Thu, 25 Jun 2015, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> I'm pleased to announce that there will be a screening of 
> CITIZENFOUR at 7pm on Sunday in Prague (right after the Welcome 
> Reception), in Congress Hall.
>  
> We'll be starting promptly at 7, and space is limited. This event is 
> open to all IETF attendees and companions. Thanks to the ADs who 
> have made the room available.
> 
> 
> --

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:08:52 +1000

Small correction: It'll be Congress Hall I.

Thanks also to AMS staff for their help (and corrections :).

Cheers,

> On 25 Jun 2015, at 7:02 am, Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 93attendees mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/93attendees

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:56:54 -0700

Nope. The IETF isn't political at all.

Joe

> On Jun 24, 2015, at 2:02 PM, Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:37:32 +0200

> Nope. The IETF isn't political at all.

We take positions, and we're proud of it.

A Mission Statement for the IETF (RFC 3935) section 4.1 is most explicit:

   The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF.  We want
   the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment
   to openness and fairness.  We embrace technical concepts such as
   decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of
   resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of
   the IETF community.  These concepts have little to do with the
   technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that
   we choose to create.

The powerful IETF community reaction to the pervasive monitoring issue
just shows that what we adopted as IETF consensus in BCP 95, 2004 is
still what this community's about.

And I'm proud of that.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 09:40:33 -0700

>    technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that

IMO, your interpretation of this as relating to political issues
mistakes the IETF for EFF.

Further, organizations that promote political agendas take great pains
to separate those events (and financial resources) from non-political
meetings. Otherwise, e.g., those on US gov't funds might be questioned
about their registration fees here.

I take the above instead to mean that the IETF should not "let a
thousand flowers bloom" but rather pick technologies based on their core
values. When the IETF has had opportunity to do this, they have
summarily and repeatedly failed in favor of the profits of their
participants. I have said repeatedly that "sometimes the right answer is
'no'".

> still what this community's about.

How exactly do the following fit with "resonating with the [IETF's} core
values" (e.g., the E2E principle, simple core/smart edge, etc.)? with
BCP95?:

	- support for NAT

	- support for DPI via deep parsing of IPv6 header chains

Seems to me those *enable* pervasive monitoring. Oh, yeah - that's OK
when it's for profit ;-)

> And I'm proud of that.

I support everyone's ability to do so personally. Doing so as a group,
IMO, again confuses the IETF with the EFF.

Joe

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:46:49 -0400

> participants. I have said repeatedly that "sometimes the right answer is

Among the Snowden documents was the disclosure that the NSA had been
spending taxpayer money to undermine and subvert standards activities
including IETF.

As I pointed out to several folk in the administration after the original
story broke, I was asked to come out of retirement and work on securing the
net because they told me it was a matter of national importance to secure
the critical infrastructure. Now I discover that a US government agency
charged with protecting national security has been actively sabotaging my
work and that of the rest of us in the security area.

What we have created here is a technology trap that sprang shut roughly
twenty years ago with Western civilization inside. Without electricity,
sanitation and water, modern cities collapse within weeks. None of those
infrastructures have been designed for security and all are now connected
to network that allows attacks to be launched from any place in the world
with absolutely no hope of attribution.

At this point we can either let the generals in Russia China and the US
turn cyber into a new domain with the commercial and consulting
opportunities that offers or we can work on making those attacks
superfluous. Land, Sea and Air bleed three quarters of a trillion dollars
from the US exchequer every year. Are we going to allow them to make cyber
a domain and make it a round trillion?

> Seems to me those *enable* pervasive monitoring. Oh, yeah - that's OK

If packets cross from an IPv4 network to an IPv6 network, the address will
inevitably change. The technical term for that is Network Address
Translation. Thus the requirement for NAT stems directly from the decision
to use a 32 bit address space for IPv4 and the fact that the global
population is of the order of ten billion.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 11:58:20 -0700

On 6/26/2015 11:46 AM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> If packets cross from an IPv4 network to an IPv6 network, the address
> will inevitably change. The technical term for that is Network Address
> Translation. 

NAT existed long before anyone tried to use it to traverse from IPv4 to
IPv6, but again, the issue I'm raising isn't whether it's useful or even
necessary, it's whether it is an example of "pervasive monitoring".

Joe

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:00:44 +0200

On 2015-06-26 20:46, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Joe Touch <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out to several folk in the administration after the
> original story broke, I was asked to come out of retirement and work on
> securing the net because they told me it was a matter of national
> importance to secure the critical infrastructure. Now I discover that a
> US government agency charged with protecting national security has been
> actively sabotaging my work and that of the rest of us in the security area.
> 
> infrastructures have been designed for security and all are now
> connected to network that allows attacks to be launched from any place
> in the world with absolutely no hope of attribution.
> 
> superfluous. Land, Sea and Air bleed three quarters of a trillion
> dollars from the US exchequer every year. Are we going to allow them to
> make cyber a domain and make it a round trillion?
> 

... and that is why showing a movie about this isn't the worst idea
I've seen the IETF have in recent years.

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 21:02:07 +0200

also - where is it written that all IETF discussions are discussions
about NAT?

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:47:15 -0500

> also - where is it written that all IETF discussions are discussions

It's a specialization of Godwin's Law.  There is no need to write down
such laws.  They just _are_.  Like Murphy's Law, a specialization of
which is that even the most innocuous-seeming [email-masked] thread is
likely to devolve into a multi-hundred post debacle.

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 06:12:39 +0900

what to wear to the movies

   http://www.cafepress.com/randybush

randy

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 18:21:26 -0300

It is only a movie, one with some relationship to topics that we are working on, with current interest. Who knows if in the future someone organizes another tech-related showing that is interesting. Which is fine. Our technical work, of course, is separate.

Now back to your regularly scheduled NAT discussion :-) Do CGNs have a role in privacy protection? :-) (Don't answer that.) 

Jari

---

From: Leif Johansson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2015 11:10:48 +0200

> 26 jun 2015 kl. 23:12 skrev Randy Bush <[email-masked]>:
> 

t

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:28:14 +0200

> mistakes the IETF for EFF.

You'll note that I chose not to use the word "political". That was
deliberate.

"Political" is used in a variety of ways, many of which I don't agree
with. The use of the word also varies greatly from country to country,
so it's fraught with danger for anyone from one country to use the word
in debates occuring in another country.

So I find the use of the word to be a distraction.

I see the showing of CITIZENFOUR as completely consistent with the
position the IETF has taken with such steps as publishing "Pervasive
Monitoring is an Attack" (RFC 7258, BCP 188).

I support this position.

That's all.

---

From: Joe Touch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:36:55 -0700

> Den 26. juni 2015 18:40, skrev Joe Touch:
...
> Monitoring is an Attack" (RFC 7258, BCP 188).

On that we agree.

> I support this position.

I'm here to support the technology and to judge solutions on their own
merit, not their source.

Which is why I support neither of the above.

Joe